SOOKI RYMBAI AND ANR. vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR.
- Court
- High Court of Meghalaya
2026:MLHC:978
Serial No.05
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.88/2026
Date of order: 02.09.2026
1. Shri Sooki Rymbai
2. Smti. XXX (victim) ..... Petitioners
Vs
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Station House
Officer, PS Rynjah, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. Smti. YYY (complainant) ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : None
For the Respondents : Mrs. N.G. Shylla, PP with
Mrs. I. Lyngwa, GA
i) Whether approved for No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication No
in press:
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
Since none appears for the petitioners with the assistance
of the learned PP, the petition is proceeded with.
2. By this petition, the petitioners i.e. petitioner No.1
(original accused) and petitioner No.2 (survivor), seek quashing
of the FIR registered with the Women Police Station, East Jaintia
Page 1 of 10
2026:MLHC:978
Hills, Khliehriat being FIR No.17(5) 2020 and consequently; the
chargesheet and the proceeding pending before the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat,
being Special POCSO Case No.11 of 2021.
3. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioners
were in a romantic relationship when the incident took place and
consequently, have got married and have two children from the
said relationship.
rd
4. Pursuant to the order dated 3 August, 2026, the parties
i.e., the petitioners appeared before the Secretary, High Court
Legal Services Committee, pursuant to which the Secretary has
submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The envelope is
th
opened and the report dated 12 August, 2026 is perused.
5. From the said report, it appears that today, the petitioner
No.1 is aged 28 years and petitioner No.2 (survivor)is about 19
years; that they have got formally married before the Marriage
Registrar and live together in their own house in East Jaintia
Hills, alongwith their two sons. It further appears from the report
that the petitioner No.1 has passed Class-VIII and is a daily wage
Page 2 of 10
2026:MLHC:978
labourer earning about ₹ 500 per day and that he takes care of
all the expenditures at home. It further appears that the
petitioner No.2 is a homemaker having passed Class-IX, with no
income of her own. It further appears that although the
petitioner No.2 has an Epic Card and Aadhaar Card, the said
cards i.e., Epic Card and Aadhaar Card are yet to be made for
the two children. It further appears from the report that the
petitioner No.2 is not keen on pursuing her studies, however, is
interested in tailoring and if given an opportunity, she would like
to take coaching classes for the same. It further appears that the
petitioner No.2 has received sone amounts in her bank account
from time to time after the delivery of her first child, however,
she does not remember the exact amount. It further appears
that she does not know for what the amount was given to her
and from where it came. The report further reveals that the
petitioner No.2 wishes that the case be closed and that her said
consent is voluntary, without any condition or coercion, as she
is happily living with the petitioner No.1 and the children.
6. This Court in its judgment in the case of Shri Shalenbor
Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr , passed in
Page 3 of 10
2026:MLHC:978
th
Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023 dated 10 April, 2026 , in paragraphs
31, 33, 34 and 35 has observed as hereunder:
“31. The ground realities in the State of Meghalaya cannot
be ignored and lost sight of. It shows high incidents of
adolescent consensual relationships culminating in
elopement and early marriage or living together, as
husband and wife, which is recognised by the society.
Infact, cases of adolescent relationships where the parties
i.e., the victim and the boy have got married or are living
together as husband and wife and have a child from the
said relationship are far too many, resulting in parties filing
petitions under Section 528 BNSS (earlier, Section 482
Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the proceeding by consent of
the parties.
32. .....
33. What also cannot be lost sight of is, that in Meghalaya,
matrilineal system is a rare, ancient societal structure
among the Khasi, Garo and Jaintia tribes, where lineage
and inheritance pass through the mother. Children take
their mother’s surname, the youngest daughter inherits
the property (is the custodian of ancestral property) and
the husband often moves into the wife’s house. The system
is believed to have originated from an agrarian society and
the need to protect the family structure, ensuring women’s
economic security, social stability and the preservation of
tribal identity. Infact, in the Khasi community, women have
more independence than women in many patriarchal
communities, including the freedom to select their
partners, remarry without shame and take an active role in
public places like market place and businesses. It is in this
background that this Court would have to consider a case
seeking quashing of a POCSO case by consent, keeping in
mind all factors, including the girl’s (victim’s) and her
child’s social security, by ensuring that she and the child
get the benefit of the government schemes, including under
the POCSO Act.
Page 4 of 10
2026:MLHC:978
34. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, quashing of a
POCSO case under Section 528 BNSS by consent, is
permissible even if it is a special statute and there is no
specific exclusion of any present law/custom. However, the
said discretion has to be used with due care and caution
and circumspection in exceptional cases, to do justice. As
noted earlier, there cannot be any straitjacket formula as
to in which cases the said discretion can or cannot be
exercised, inasmuch as, that would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case i.e., the age of the parties
coming before the court; whether the consent given by the
victim is an informed consent and not under coercion of
the family members or the boy; that the victim and the
accused are married and have a child or are living together
as husband and wife, as per the customs in the State of
Meghalaya, etc. Where parties are living together as
husband and wife or are married, a police report, or a
report from any authority, be called for, verifying the said
claim. Also, while considering whether the consent of the
victim is an ‘informed consent’, it is necessary that the
victim places her affidavit on record giving her ‘No
Objection’ to the quashing of the case. That, before such
an affidavit is accepted, in order to ensure that the consent
is an informed consent, the victim may be sent before the
Secretary, MLSA or Secretary, DLSA to ascertain whether
the consent is an informed consent, by giving her time to
ponder over the same; and a report be called for, before
such quashing petition is considered. While quashing the
case, the Government schemes that may be available to a
victim in a POCSO Act and the child born from the said
relationship also be given due weightage as suggested and
directed by the Apex Court in the case of Re: Right to
Privacy of Adolescents (supra) .
35. No doubt, we are conscious of the fact that a case under
POCSO Act, is not a case against an individual, but is an
offence against the society as a whole, however, the
administration or enforcement of the law cannot be
divorced from lived realities. Rendering justice demands
Page 5 of 10
2026:MLHC:978
not only that the law be applied with precision, but also
that it be tempered with fairness, compassion and empathy
when the situation/facts of a case, warrant it. Thus, it is
necessary to maintain a fine balance between the
competing interests of justice, deterrence and
rehabilitation. Where the victim and the boy are married or
are living together as husband and wife (and recognised),
and have a child/children, sending the boy to jail would
not serve the cause of justice, rather it would cause great
injustice to the victim and the child born from the said
consensual relationship, as ultimately, the aim of the law
is to do justice. Thus, in cases where the court comes to
the conclusion, that the consent given by the victim is a
genuine and informed consent and that it would be greater
injustice to send the boy to jail, instead of letting the parties
live together as one family, the Court may consider
quashing the case, pending trial, keeping in mind what is
stated aforesaid. We may note, considering the large
number of POCSO cases, in particular Romeo – Juliet
cases, it is the responsibility of the State Government to
create awareness amongst the people, including the
children about the provisions of the POCSO Act, its
punishment, etc., not only in the cities but also in the
interior and remote places, including schools, colleges,
etc.”
7. Having regard to the aforesaid judgment; the report of the
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee; the fact that
the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are married and living together as
husband and wife with their two children and also having regard
to the fact, that the petitioner No.2 has no objection to the case
being closed, there is no impediment if the petition is allowed.
Page 6 of 10
2026:MLHC:978
8. It is also pertinent to note from the report of the Secretary,
High Court Legal Services Committee, that the respondent No.2,
who is the original complainant also wishes that the case be
closed and the FIR and the proceeding be quashed as the
petitioners alongwith their children are living happily together.
The respondent No.2 is the mother of the petitioner No.2.
9. Considering the aforesaid, the FIR registered with the
Women Police Station, East Jaintia Hills, Khliehriat being FIR
No.17(5) 2020 and consequently; the chargesheet and the
proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, being Special POCSO Case
No.11 of 2021, are quashed and set aside.
10. The petition is allowed and is accordingly disposed of.
11. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her two
small children be extended all benefits as may be applicable to
them i.e., the Schemes from either the State or Central
Government, which are as under;
(i) Scheme for Care and Support to Victims of under
Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act (exclusively for POCSO
victims) [Nirbhaya Fund];
Page 7 of 10
2026:MLHC:978
(ii) Mission Vatsalya Scheme (Child Protection Services);
(iii) Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (BBBP) Scheme;
(iv) Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme, 2022;
(v) Meghalaya Health Insurance Scheme;
(vi) Ayushman Bharat-PM-JAY (free health);
(vii) Mission 1000 Days-Meghalaya;
(viii) Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK);
(ix) Chief Minister’s Safe Motherhood Scheme or CM-SMS;
(x) Special Training Programme for age-appropriate
admission of Out of School Children (OoSC) and Back to
School Campaign;
(xi) Samagra Siksha (Back to School);
(xii) NALSA (Child-Friendly Legal Services for Children)
Scheme 2024;
(xiii) NALSA (Legal Services to Persons with Mental Illness
and Persons with intellectual Disabilities) Scheme, 2024;
and
(xiv) Mission Shakti-Women’s Safety, Support and
Empowerment; and
(xv) Insurance or any other scheme.
12. In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of
the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
(DCPO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat as well as the
Secretary, DLSA, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat are
directed to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the
petitioner No.2 and her two children are made available to them
Page 8 of 10
2026:MLHC:978
at the earliest and in any event within eight weeks from the date
of receipt of this order.
13. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
petitioner No.2 and her two children be placed before this Court
on the next date.
14. If compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme
is granted to the petitioner No. 2, the said money received will
be kept in a Fixed Deposit till the petitioner No. 2 attains the age
of 25 years. However, the petitioner No. 2 would be entitled to
quarterly interest on the said amount and would be free to deal
with the said amount on attaining the age of 25 years.
15. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to
both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services
Authority, Shillong and Commissioner and Secretary, Social
Welfare Department, Shillong as well as to the District Child
Protection Officer (DCPO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat
as well as the Secretary, DLSA, East Jaintia Hills District,
Khliehriat to enable them to take steps and comply with the
same.
Page 9 of 10
2026:MLHC:978
16. Although, the petition is disposed of, list the petition on
th
29 October, 2026 , for recording compliance of the directions
given in paragraphs 11 to 14 aforesaid.
17. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
( Revati Mohite Dere )
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
02.09.2026
“ Lam DR-PS”
Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.09.03 13:09:53 IST